Although I’ve been 70/30 in retirement accounts I want to thank Tyler for opening my eyes on the benefit of SCV and how it complements the PP portfolio. Making that change towards GB has made all the difference.

Has anybody here ever compared the total market capitalization of stocks, LTTs, gold, and cash?

If we assume that money "sloshes" between those four assets -- i.e., that if it flows out of one, a roughly equal amount must flow into one or more of the others -- then the portfolio would maintain a constant value only if the four assets were allocated according to total market capitalization, right?

Has anybody here ever compared the total market capitalization of stocks, LTTs, gold, and cash?

If we assume that money "sloshes" between those four assets -- i.e., that if it flows out of one, a roughly equal amount must flow into one or more of the others -- then the portfolio would maintain a constant value only if the four assets were allocated according to total market capitalization, right?

It would be interesting to see those four percentages...

Well If, for instance, all assets were worth $25, and everyone wanted to sell stocks, they'd keep dropping in value until someone felt like buying them. If nobody wanted to buy them until they were at $5, then the total market cap of this economy would be $80. So some money went from, say, cash to stocks, but $20 of value is gone.

Has anybody here ever compared the total market capitalization of stocks, LTTs, gold, and cash?

If we assume that money "sloshes" between those four assets -- i.e., that if it flows out of one, a roughly equal amount must flow into one or more of the others -- then the portfolio would maintain a constant value only if the four assets were allocated according to total market capitalization, right?

It would be interesting to see those four percentages...

Well If, for instance, all assets were worth $25, and everyone wanted to sell stocks, they'd keep dropping in value until someone felt like buying them. If nobody wanted to buy them until they were at $5, then the total market cap of this economy would be $80. So some money went from, say, cash to stocks, but $20 of value is gone.

If the "total market cap of this economy" includes cash, then it wouldn't change if people "sell" cash to buy stocks, or vice versa, right? As I said, the assumption in this thought exercise is that money sloshes around between the four assets, meaning the total amount of money sloshing around remains constant.

I'm not claiming the assumption is necessarily realistic, but it does seem to be implicit in some discussions about the PP concept. The idea seems to be that money has to go somewhere, and if you're invested in stocks, bonds, and gold, it's probably flowing into at least one of your assets -- unless it's one of those nasty beasts known as a "tight-money recession" where money disappears into a black hole

Well If, for instance, all assets were worth $25, and everyone wanted to sell stocks, they'd keep dropping in value until someone felt like buying them. If nobody wanted to buy them until they were at $5, then the total market cap of this economy would be $80. So some money went from, say, cash to stocks, but $20 of value is gone.

If the "total market cap of this economy" includes cash, then it wouldn't change if people "sell" cash to buy stocks, or vice versa, right? As I said, the assumption in this thought exercise is that money sloshes around between the four assets, meaning the total amount of money sloshing around remains constant.

I'm not claiming the assumption is necessarily realistic, but it does seem to be implicit in some discussions about the PP concept. The idea seems to be that money has to go somewhere, and if you're invested in stocks, bonds, and gold, it's probably flowing into at least one of your assets -- unless it's one of those nasty beasts known as a "tight-money recession" where money disappears into a black hole

Oh, yea maybe if you assume the amount of "money" is constant then sure, everything sloshes into a different asset in equal amounts (like assuming a can opener), but then that isn't really a free market, with market clearing prices. I figure (?) you'd also have to assume stable productivity/wage growth/inflation also, so that some of those resources in financial markets aren't diverted to things like food/smartphones/cars or whatever.

Say a company has a net worth (market cap?) of 100 million. 100 owners (shareholders) each with a million dollar share. The company spends 50 million cash savings to buy out half the owners/shareholders. Now the company's net worth is 50 million?

There are now 50 owners/shareholders, each share still worth 1 million?

But the company's income stream hasn't changed. Earnings per share has doubled? And so the PE ratio "improves" (looks cheaper to buy)?

If demand for that company's stock among investors remains the same, but supply of that stock suddenly halves, then we would expect the price of each share to roughly double, right? So total market cap of the company should remain roughly the same.